GYEABOUR II AND OTHERS vs. ABABIO [1991]DLCA2249

Date	1991-07-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLCA2249

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUAH JA

ADJABENG JJA

TOTOE (WITH HIM ANANE ADOMAKO AND DR ANANE) FOR THE APPELLANTS.

WAN ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

WHEN IN 1963 NANA OWUSU ANSAH II ABDICATED HIS OFFICE AS CHIEF OF KAASE THE RESPONDENT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENSTOOLED IN HIS PLACE. HIS REIGN HOWEVER APPEARED SHORT-LIVED FOR WITHIN A MATTER OF FIVE YEARS HE WAS PUSHED OFF THE STOOL AND CONSTRAINED TO WANDER IN THE WILDERNESS FOR OVER THIRTEEN YEARS (1968-81).

[1991]DLCA2249
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >GYEABOUR
II AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ABABIO<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF
APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 2
GLR 416<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>TOTOE
(WITH HIM ANANE, ADOMAKO AND DR ANANE) FOR THE APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>WAN
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

WHEN IN
1963 NANA OWUSU ANSAH II ABDICATED HIS OFFICE AS CHIEF OF KAASE, THE RESPONDENT
WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENSTOOLED IN HIS PLACE. HIS REIGN, HOWEVER APPEARED
SHORT-LIVED, FOR WITHIN A MATTER OF FIVE YEARS, HE WAS PUSHED OFF THE STOOL AND
CONSTRAINED TO WANDER IN THE WILDERNESS FOR OVER THIRTEEN YEARS (1968-81). <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF FRANCOIS JSC<o:p></o:p>The
respondent was however not idle. He set processes afoot to establish the
unjustness of the usurpation of his rights to the Kaase stool and, after
initial reverses, finally succeeded in achieving a full restoration of his
entitlements. This was by a judgment of the National House of Chiefs of 6 May
1981. That judgment declared in unequivocal terms that the destoolment of the
respondent was illegal. His restoration was tantamount to his never having
vacated the stool or relinquished any rights thereto.<o:p></o:p>The
significance of this decision is that notionally the respondent never left
office. Consequently, any one who assumed the mantle of chief during those
thirteen years had usurped the respondent’s stool. But more importantly, the
customary act of fealty which had been performed by the respondent on his
enstoolment previously, retained its full force and effect.<o:p></o:p>The
decision of the National House of Chiefs was not appealed against. It is res
judicata for all time on all the issues it dealt with. Pausing for a moment,
any insistence that the respondent should renew his allegiance to the Golden
Stool by swearing a fresh traditional oath because of the lapse of time he was
off the Kaase stool, can therefore have no legal warrant.<o:p></o:p>The
National House of Chiefs also restored to the respondent all the stool
properties attached to the Kaase stool. During the contest to regain his
rights, the Kumasi Traditional Council, with the sixth appellant as its
president, took over the Kaase stool properties to protect and oversee their
proper utilisation in the interim. However, after the respondent’s status had
been determined by a properly constituted tribunal and he had secured full
rehabilitation as chief of Kaase, “interim” seems to have been redefined to
mean “perpetual.”<o:p></o:p>It was
the resistance by the Kumasi Traditional Council to restore to its proper
owner, i.e. the respondent, the Kaase stool properties that provoked the action
in the High Court, Kumasi. Before then, the recalcitrance of the traditional
council had been demonstrated in its defiance of two orders emanating from the
Regional and the National Houses of Chiefs; the last on 17 April 1985.<o:p></o:p>One may
perhaps be allowed the indulgence of expressing astonishment at the contempt
demonstrated by the Kumasi Traditional Council to orders emanating from
properly and duly constituted tribunals. One wonders how that august body
expected its own orders to be obeyed when it betrayed such utter lack of
reverence for tribunals in higher hierarchies. An essential axiom in the
concept of the rule of law is that no one can be a law unto himself or be above
the law. For the general weal of all, each and every one subjugates himself to
the overriding force of the law. Acts to the contrary breed anarchy!<o:p></o:p>Yet the
respondent had to resort to a writ of delivery before his Kaase stool
properties were restored to him. An inventory signed by all parties and
itemised as 9-11 was made in June 1988. Even then, the appellants took the
stance that the stool properties referred to in the judgments of the Regional
and National Houses of Chiefs did not include land. This curious position was
maintained though it was well known that the Kaase stool had lands which it
alienated from time to time earning revenue therefrom, a third of which was
regularly surrendered to the Golden Stool. Transactions with the Kaase stool
lands are well documented and date well into the past, at least to the time of
the predecessor of the present occupant of the Golden Stool.<o:p></o:p>Despite
the judgment mentioned above the sixth appellant constituted the other five
appellants into a committee to oversee the management and control of the Kaase
stool lands. An exercise that had never been attempted before in Kaase history;
not even when someone occupied the stool on the illegal destoolment of the
respondent. The usurper chief also held himself out as lessor of the Kaase
stool lands under the aegis of the sixth appellant as confirming party, in clear
contempt of the court.<o:p></o:p>